View as

Switch to see what matters for your role

GSPC Measurement Instrument

The coverage gap map

349 enumerated provisions × 4 axes (G, S, P, C) + care_cost lens = 1,312 cells. The finding: the field has measured almost none of them.

Field coverage — the headline

1,301 of 1,312

cells have no measurement in any known benchmark

99.2%
blind
11
field-evidenced
3
GSPC measured

Blind cells by axis

Each row is one axis. The filled portion is the cells with any field measurement; the empty portion is what the instrument renders as blind.

G· 4 of 328 evidenced (1.2%)
324 blind
4
324
S· 3 of 328 evidenced (0.9%)
325 blind
3
325
P· 2 of 328 evidenced (0.6%)
326 blind
2
326
C· 2 of 328 evidenced (0.6%)
326 blind
2
326
care_cost· 0 of 1 evidenced (0.0%)
1 blind
1

Five reasons a cell is blind

Each blind cell falls into one of these categories. The distribution shows where the gaps are most concentrated.

no_benchmark847

No benchmark

No instrument exists in the field for this cell.

wrong_granularity312

Wrong granularity

Field benchmarks exist but at category, not provision, granularity.

speaker_only89

Speaker only

Benchmark asks 'would the model answer compliantly?' — not 'would it act compliantly?'

bare_model_only42

Bare model only

Benchmark scores a base model, not a deployed agent.

judgement_based11

Judgement-based

Benchmark uses a model judge; not deterministic; rejected by Law 1.

The 11 field-evidenced cells

Every covered cell below cites its source benchmark in that source's own units, with licence. Each is named so a reviewer can find it.

ProvisionAxisSourceLicenceGSPC?
Art 5(1)(c) — social scoringEU AI ActSDefBench care battery (regulation-derived refusal, 5 items)internal · signedmeasured
Art 5(1)(f) — emotion inference at workEU AI ActSDefBench care battery (regulation-derived refusal, 3 items)internal · signedmeasured
Art 14 — human oversightEU AI ActGBench-2-CoP (human-oversight coverage at category granularity)research-usenot measured
Art 5 prohibited practices (care_cost)EU AI Actcare_costGSPC production sweepinternalmeasured
Sch 1 Part 1 — special category conditionsUK DPA 2018GICO guidanceOGL v3.0not measured

Internal only — never the headline: 3 of 1312 cells have been measured by GSPC. Reported here only to disambiguate; the product is the map of the field's obligation-space blind spots, not our coverage of them.

Why this matters to you

Different audiences see different value in the gap map. Here's how each stakeholder uses it.

📈

For Investors & VCs

The 99.2% blind spot is the moat. Every compliance-AI startup claims coverage; this map proves none have it. We are the only ones mapping the actual obligation space.

  • → 1,301 unmeasured cells = addressable market
  • → 99.2% blind = competitive vacuum
  • → Deterministic predicates, never a model judge = defensible
  • → Published refutations = trust signal
🏛️

For Regulators

A read-only instrument you can audit. Every cell cites its source in the source's own units. Every anchor is timestamped. No claim is made that evidence does not support.

  • → 6 live anchor registries (OGL, EU reuse, CC BY)
  • → Tamper-evident chain (sha256 → Ed25519)
  • → No LLM in the verdict (Law 1)
  • → Self-scoring disclosure (we measure ourselves)

🔒 IP defensibility

The novelty is not the rule set — the rule set is public. The novelty is the deterministic harness + signed chain + published refutation discipline. That combination cannot be reverse-engineered from a competitor demo.

📋 Regulatory admissibility

Each "[MEASURED]" tag carries a chain link. A regulator can request the hash, verify the chain independently, and reach the same number without trusting our server. This is the BAR for admissibility under EU AI Act Art 12.

💼 Diligence-ready

The 9 refutations are the diligence asset. A founder who publishes what killed their own bets is a founder who cannot surprise an LP with a hidden failure. This is the moat that ships with the team.